rogerclee

There are a few opinions here: http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=28325

pass of course

I would bid 2♦, don't hate 2N.

Passing would be unreal bad. Partner has forced to 5D red/white and we have this lol. I am definitely worried about missing 7 but it happens.

No, I am pretty sure everyone thought that this was completely impossible.

I'd pass for sure.

diamond

4N, I tend to be quite sound for michaels especially at this vulnerability. I am bidding to make (or hoping to).

Seems like a really obvious keycard bid on your actual auction. Agree that bridge is generally a simple game that people try to complicate

I can't construct a series of heavy sighs by partner which would persuade me to not bid 5♦.

What is the vul? If we are red vs white I could see bidding 6H vs a lot of people, in general people who were willing to jump to 5S like this are going to bid 6S when you bid 6H. Of course this is an exploitable way to play, as is any exploitive style, so it is all kind of a poker game in the end and would depend a lot on who the opps are. Taking away the poker aspect of the hand I agree with jdonn, it's a pass, we cannot commit to slam but would like to invite it.

This is super lol. Believe it or not they don't always lead a diamond vs 7C!

The opening bid was 3♣ not 3♦ Ok, then it is marginally less clear, but I would still do it.

This kind of hand has come up several times on the forums. As usual, 3♥ seems like the best call, since you have diamond shortness, and partner will routinely pass out 3♦ when you are cold for 4♥.

Again, I suppose it depends on the rest of your system, but I am used to playing a system that does not start with 3C with 1 suited minor hands, thus a 1 suited minor hand with no 4 card major would be impossible. A hand with a minor is possible with a 4 card major but that hand would look for the major suit fit and then bid 4m if they didn't find it.

Sorry, but your train of logic is the thing that is inconsistent in this. You want partner to either choose unilaterally to play in hearts without investigating the spade fit, or to choose unilaterally to play in a 4-4 spade fit without investigating the heart fit. What would be inconsistent about trying to investigate both possible fits, and letting partner choose which is the right one? If you have a way to involve partner it is not inconsistent to do so. Partner could have five spades for his 2N in which case spades is almost certainly right with your 4-6, he could have 4 spades and 3 hearts in which case hearts is probably the right spot, he could have 4 spades and 2 hearts in which case it will depend on his hand, but spades will often be right (and he will be able to tell the difference). By bidding 3C and then 4H you cater to everything.

I think this is a good problem. I like passing, planning to pass a double. I think that if partner has a doubleton club we can often get 800 and our offensive prospects go way down, and if partner has a singleton club he is very likely to bid. Obviously if he bids 5D I will bid 5H planning to drive it to slam and try for 7. If partner just bids 5S we have another problem that is quite close but I would kick it in. I can construct a lot of minimum hands with a stiff club where slam is very good, and it's harder to construct them where slam is very bad (but not that hard). BTW I think that in these type of situations where there are a lot of loose ends to tie up people are generally overly optimistic and underrate the chances of some slow losers.

Fred always says if a bid could be natural it is, I don't see why this couldn't show 4S and 6H and offer a choice of games. Honestly my first intuitive reaction was that this is a splinter and shows 3 of the other major (looking for the 5-3 fit, when not finding it splintering). I was thinking 3055, or perhaps 31(54). With 31(54) I cannot decide if it's right to bid your 5 card suit so that partner knows what it is, or to bid this to pinpoint your shortness and make it easier to get to your side 4 card minor. I could see it happening that after 2N 3C 3D 4D partner has a negative hand for diamonds and bids 4N while 6C was good in the club fit, or that partner needs to know your shortness to evaluate. I could see after 2N 3C 3D 4H partner needing to know your 5 card suit in order to decide what to do... The other thing is maybe it's just better to bid 2N 3S, however you play that, with these 31(54) and 3055 hands, depending on your structure, rather than starting with stayman, so these hands are probably impossible. After thinking about it I decided that the way I play 3S it is better to start with that on those hands, so I guess this is moot, and we go back to my first sentence anwyays. This is a good example of all your conventions fitting into a coherent system, rather than just being hodge podge stuff.

I would bid 4C and go to slam opposite 3 and stop in 4 opposite 2. Not very pretty but I think slam rates to be good opposite 3 aces (HA is not useless), and rates to be bad opposite 2 aces, and further I don't feel like I will ever have a confident auction that produces better results than that since we don't know what we play.

I prefer to only super accept with very good hands and 4+ trumps.

If it wasn't ken I would assume the auction was entered incorrectly. 1S X p 2D p 2H p 3C p p 3H p So, Partner passed after 1S X, then didnt bid over 2H either. LHO has doubled and bid hearts, showing a strong hand with hearts RHO has bid a new suit and made a forcing bid opposite partner's strong hand LHO has passed RHOs forcing bid Partner has reopened with 3H?

Just wanted to make sure everyone realized it was matchpoints? We don't need 1-1 hearts to go down 1.

Really don't like the suggested line in MP. For it to succeed you need LHO to have at least 3 diamonds, to not have the diamond Q, to have a heart, and to not have the HA or CK. Even if you want to assume they won't have the CK/HA + DQ (reasonable, but you never know, some people like to open 4S with heavy hands) the odds that LHO has exactly 7132 or 7141 are low. If LHO has a doubleton diamond he can ruff the third diamond and you have now failed to strip out the diamonds, and if hearts are 0-2 obviously this line won't work. Even if LHO does have one of those shapes there is now quite a good chance they have the DQ. Doing all of this and risking down 2 fairly often is just too risky imo. I prefer to play 3 rounds of diamonds, ruffing, and exiting a heart. I have lost my contract now if LHO had 7132 with no DQ, but I have gained my contract when LHO has 7123 with Qx of diamonds, and when LHO has 7141 with the DQ. I have broken even when LHO has 7141 with no DQ. This line is coming close to correct at imps and if you add in how much more often I will go down 1 instead of down 2 (any layout with hearts 2-0 and DQ on left, and 7132 with DQ on left) I think it's pretty much a no brainer at MP. edit: sorry, I do not make when LHO has Qxx of diamonds obviously, I meant I go down 1 instead :D hopefully nobody is posting how dumb I am B) edit2: also dont make on Qx of diamonds oops :lol:

Agree with my first pass, am thinking of slam now and would start with 3H.

quantumcat shoots, scores!